Klaudandus wrote:So if you're criticizing Eich, as a public figure, for something he did in 2008, you should also openly criticize Clinton as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, otherwise its cherry picking.

I disagree that you have to criticise each and every person who has ever had an anti-gay opinion if you want to criticise one person. It would be far too tedious to name all of them, in no small part because there are so gosh darned many of them. I do think Clinton is wrong to hold that opinion, obviously, if she still does (and she probably does).

As far as cherry picking, that's definitely true. Cherry-picking should be reserved for those who pick one of the 76 laws in Leviticus and decide that law, above all others, is an affront to their religion and impinges upon their religious freedom, while the other 75 are of little to no importance. They can be happy to serve bacon-eaters and people with unkempt hair, those who cheat on their spouses, or have sex with animals. It's just the gays they can't serve.

Fridmarr wrote:Clearly any behavior can be rationalized, whether it's the same behavior one is otherwise critical of or not.

That much is very true.

Klaudandus: I think Clinton is a dumb old hag who can go fuck herself. That's not because of her support for DOMA, since I really don't care and don't want to care about internal american politics, but because of things like comparing Putin to Hitler...and her reaction to Gaddafi's brutal murder.

Klaudandus wrote:So if you're criticizing Eich, as a public figure, for something he did in 2008, you should also openly criticize Clinton as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, otherwise its cherry picking.

I disagree that you have to criticise each and every person who has ever had an anti-gay opinion if you want to criticise one person. It would be far too tedious to name all of them, in no small part because there are so gosh darned many of them. I do think Clinton is wrong to hold that opinion, obviously, if she still does (and she probably does).

As far as cherry picking, that's definitely true. Cherry-picking should be reserved for those who pick one of the 76 laws in Leviticus and decide that law, above all others, is an affront to their religion and impinges upon their religious freedom, while the other 75 are of little to no importance. They can be happy to serve bacon-eaters and people with unkempt hair, those who cheat on their spouses, or have sex with animals. It's just the gays they can't serve.

Clinton did more harm to the LGBT movement with her open support of DOMA than Eich ever did with his donation to the Prop-8 group.

Klaudandus wrote:So if you're criticizing Eich, as a public figure, for something he did in 2008, you should also openly criticize Clinton as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, otherwise its cherry picking.

I disagree that you have to criticise each and every person who has ever had an anti-gay opinion if you want to criticise one person. It would be far too tedious to name all of them, in no small part because there are so gosh darned many of them. I do think Clinton is wrong to hold that opinion, obviously, if she still does (and she probably does).

As far as cherry picking, that's definitely true. Cherry-picking should be reserved for those who pick one of the 76 laws in Leviticus and decide that law, above all others, is an affront to their religion and impinges upon their religious freedom, while the other 75 are of little to no importance. They can be happy to serve bacon-eaters and people with unkempt hair, those who cheat on their spouses, or have sex with animals. It's just the gays they can't serve.

Clinton did more harm to the LGBT movement with her open support of DOMA than Eich ever did with his donation to the Prop-8 group.

She did change her tune on DOMA -LAST- year.

They can change their tune, but leopards don't change their spots. I'm pretty sure if she was to tell the truth she would espouse the conservative view of marriage. However, she didn't have Bill and whatshername put to death, so Hillary's flying in the face of Leviticus anyway.

Fridmarr wrote:Draco, you may want to make peace with that, for your own sake. Unless the Democrats birth another media darling, she's the next president.

Or a republican might just won. Keep in mind Romney got 47% of the vote despite all the crap he did. Personally I'd hope for a more reasonable candidate like Rand Paul. I am not a republican fan mind you, but if the Democrats are going to go with that hag Clinton then the only preferable outcome for me is a republican.

Io.Draco wrote:I am not a republican fan mind you, but if the Democrats are going to go with that hag Clinton then the only preferable outcome for me is a republican.

They have these things called "other parties" that aren't Democrat or Republican. Sure, they may not have a snowballs chance in hell of winning, but that's because pretty much everyone keeps to the same mentality of "they can't win so it's a wasted vote..."

If everyone who couldn't stand the "big two" voted for someone else, then I'd bet it'd be more than just a blip in the radar...

Anywho... back to the topic at hand:There ARE extremists (aka bigots in this instance) on both side of the fence. That's true for pretty much any argument ever made. But outside of these individual cases, the underlying issue is still at hand: Is it okay for businesses to segregate a portion of the populace based on an individuals beliefs?

This question has been answered time and again in the past with a resounding "no." Why should it suddenly be different when a new case presents itself?

Koatanga wrote:They can change their tune, but leopards don't change their spots. I'm pretty sure if she was to tell the truth she would espouse the conservative view of marriage.

If this is true, then she knows which way the wind is blowing and is willing to compromise her beliefs to get what she wants. The ends justify the means.

Fridmarr wrote:Draco, you may want to make peace with that, for your own sake. Unless the Democrats birth another media darling, she's the next president.

Or a republican might just won. Keep in mind Romney got 47% of the vote despite all the crap he did. Personally I'd hope for a more reasonable candidate like Rand Paul. I am not a republican fan mind you, but if the Democrats are going to go with that hag Clinton then the only preferable outcome for me is a republican.

John Huntsman was the more reasonable option in the last election cycle among the republican candidates that were vying for the presidency. Of course, he lost right away because the tea party republican movement, including likes like Sen. Ted Cruz, labels anything to the left of them as bad, like Bob Dole getting labeled a RINO.

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause the thread to shift to the next presidential election. That was my fault. To continue that presidential discussion, please use the politics thread and let this thread work its way back to the LGBT topic.

Klaudandus wrote:My fault as well for bringing Clinton up, although I was bringing her up in the context of the past, rather than an election context.

But you also brought her up in the context of her position of LGBT which is totally fine. To be clear, I don't mean to suggest that we can't talk politics in this thread, or that we can't talk about potential presidential candidates' views on LGBT. As long as it's LGBT related, politics and candidates are fair game.

I shifted it the discussion to the election when I suggested that's she's pretty much already locked up 2016, and that started a bit of a digression around the election and away from LGBT. We should wrap up that digressions and/or move it to the politics thread.

Skye1013 wrote:Tying both things together... how do you think it'll effect things for the LGBT community if a Republican (particularly one of the anti-LGBT types) wins the next election?

That's really hard to say. Congress has a huge impact too, and public opinion, which favors LGBT and will likely continue to grow that way does matter. People/parties need to get re-elected at the end of the day.

Do you think Obama was actually evolving his opinion on the matter or just merely hiding his head in the sand until his opinion became politically viable?